WestJet flight cancellations: Two British Columbians denied $2,000 compensation for strike-related disruptions

Two travellers whose plans were disrupted by a strike-related WestJet flight cancellation are entitled to a refund of their hotel and meal expenses, but no additional compensation, a British Columbia small claims court has ruled.

Anne and Robert Boyd told the Civil Resolution Tribunal they had planned a trip to Italy in the spring of 2023, leaving Kelowna on May 18 and arriving in Rome on May 19, but ended up reaching their destination more than 24 hours later than planned.

On the day of their departure, WestJet cancelled more than 100 flights due to a labour dispute with unionized pilots, including the Boyds’ connecting flight from Calgary.

“The parties disagree as to whether or not this cancellation was within WestJet’s control,” tribunal member Amanda Binner wrote in her July 5 decision.

The Boyds still flew from Kelowna to Calgary on May 18, but had to spend the night there before taking a rescheduled connecting flight – and finally arrived in Italy on May 20.

The frustrated travelers argued they should receive $2,000 in compensation, plus a $277 refund for a hotel stay and meal they paid for during the delay.

Strike avoided, cancellations not

Days before the Boyds’ trip began, the Air Line Pilots Association issued a 72-hour strike notice, which would have authorized WestJet pilots to strike in the early morning hours of May 19.

The airline responded by issuing a lockout notice, effective at the same time as the strike.

The two sides eventually reached a tentative agreement hours before the deadline, avoiding a strike and lockout — which the Boyds said made the cancellation of their flight “within the control of the carrier” under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations.

The APPR defines travelers’ rights and airlines’ responsibilities for everything from delayed flights to lost baggage.

“If the cancellation were within WestJet’s control, the parties agree that the Boyds would generally be entitled to compensation under section 19 of the APPR,” Binner wrote.

“If the flight cancellation was not WestJet’s fault, section 10 of the APPR states that the airline must rebook Boyds’ flight within 48 hours, but no compensation is payable.”

What constitutes a “work interruption”?

Under the APPR, cancellations due to a “labour disruption within the carrier” are not considered to be within the control of an airline – but the Boyds said that exception should not apply in their case because the strike never happened and because WestJet chose to issue its own lockout notice.

WestJet, however, argued that this was too narrow an interpretation, and the court agreed.

Binner cited a statement from the Canadian Transportation Agency – which created the RPPA – that explained that the purpose of the labour disruption exception was to avoid “influencing the collective bargaining process.”

“So can a 72-hour notice of a strike be considered a ‘work disruption’? I find that it is. With or without notice of a strike, WestJet did not have control over the strike,” Binner wrote. “I also find that the reference to the ‘negotiation process’ in the CTA’s statement confirms that a ‘work disruption’ includes the period following the giving of notice of a strike.”

Refund approved

On the question of whether WestJet should reimburse the Boyds’ hotel and meal expenses, Binner said WestJet’s liability hinged on whether the airline did everything in its power to avoid an unnecessary delay.

Summarizing the Montreal Convention — an international treaty that also addresses airline liability — Binner wrote that carriers are not liable for damages related to delay if they can prove that they and their agents “took all measures that were reasonably required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures.”

In this case, WestJet did not argue that there were no earlier flights available that would have allowed the Boyds to avoid a hotel stay, nor did it dispute the Boyds’ claim for a refund of $277.

Binner ordered the airline to pay travelers a total of $355, including $78 in court costs and prejudgment interest.